Friday, May 31, 2013

It is most disappointing for Paul Low to even suggest the EAIC - What we need in an Independent Police Complaints
and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). What would the EAIC do - refer to the the Malaysiakini report below entitled "Former CJ laments ineffectiveness of EAIC"

How many investigators does the EAIC have? Only 1....

What would they usually do - refer the case to the Police Disciplinary Committee?

By the way, the police are already investigating.... and referring to EAIC who would possibly send it back to the police... That's why we need the IPCMC

There is no need for a formation of an Independent Police Complaints
and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as there is already an exisiting
mechanism to lodge complaints against police, said Minister in the Prime
Minister's Department Paul Low.

Low said the Enforcement Agency
Integrity Commission (EAIC), an independent oversight body on law
enforcement agencies, also looks into complaints into misconduct by
police officers.

"We already have the channels," he told reporters in Kuala Lumpur today.

In
view of this, Low urged the family of death in custody victim N
Dharmendran - who died on May 21 - to lodge a report with the EAIC so an
independent probe can commence.

Low conceded that it is possible
that the public may be confused over which agency they should complain
to, thus he promised to look into setting up a unified centre to receive
complaints, which will later forward complaints to the relevant
agencies.

Former
Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad today questioned the effectiveness of
the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC), which since its
formation in September 2011 and until the end of 2012, had only ordered
one disciplinary action and two warnings to civil servants.

The commission focuses on the 19 enforcement agencies and Abdul Hamid (left) said for a budget of RM14 million for two years, it is a costly venture.

"In
establishing a new agency, you need to recruit new officers. They lack
experience and the expertise. To overcome that problem, you either
recruit officers from other agencies or you may need to borrow them.

"How senior are they? It depends on the grades of the posts you have. Do you think those agencies will give their best officers?

"Do
you think that officers who think that they have the potential to go
very high up in their service would want to apply to be a permanent
officer of the EAIC where the chances of promotion is very limited," he
asked.

Abdul Hamid also pointed out that the EAIC is supposed to
have six investigators to look into complaints lodged on enforcement
agencies but at present it only has one since May 16.

And even if
there were more, they would be based in Putrajaya. "But the complaints
and the witnesses could be from all over the country," he said.

The former CJ was speaking on the topic ‘A critical analysis of the EAIC' at the Integrity forum today.

He
noted that since EAIC's establishment in September 2011 until the end
of 2012, it has received a total of 347 complaints and after preliminary
investigations 110 were rejected, nine were referred to Malaysian Anti
Corruption Commission (MACC), 15 were referred to appropriate
disciplinary authorities, four were referred to appropriate disciplinary
authorities and MACC; 60 or 17.2 percent were directed for full
investigation and 149 required further preliminary investigation.

Abdul
Hamid said the EAIC had directed 60 complaints to be referred for full
investigations, which, under the Act, should be done by the task force.

“However the commission has not established any task force yet (on those),” he said.

“So
far full investigations were done on three cases, and from these three,
(as above) only one has been referred to the disciplinary authority of
the police while the two cases were closed due to double jeopardy as the
complaint had been heard and punished by the appropriate enforcement
agency, namely Rela and the Road Transport Department.

Can EAIC handle other matters than corruption?

Abdul
Hamid said with the exception of the chairperson of the commission,
Heliliah Mohd Yusof, who was once a solicitor general, none of the
commissioners had experience in scrutinising investigation papers.
Heliliah is also a former Federal Court judge.

The former CJ also
pointed out with the exception of corruption cases, the EAIC is
required to handle or investigate other complaints even if it falls
under the Penal Code, based on the EAIC Act 2009.

This, he added,
raises questions on whether the EAIC could handle complaints of
disciplinary or criminal in nature involving 160,000 (enforcement)
personnel and even if the public decide not lodge police reports but
channel their complaints to the EAIC, can the six investigators or at
present, one, handle them all?

“The commission (EAIC) has been
lucky so far because the public, due to ignorance or otherwise, choose
to lodge police reports instead of complaining to the commission.
Furthermore, does the investigation officer (IO) have the expertise,
experience, facilities and equipments to carry out investigation of
offences under all laws?” he asked.

Abdul Hamid said based on
what he had put forward, some relevant and pertinent questions should be
asked on the EAIC functions namely, whether its scope and functions
should include criminal offences, and wouldn’t it be better to leave to
the agencies entrusted to do it via the disciplinary committees to
handle them.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Malaysian business should also be told to respect human rights - to comply, amongst others, with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Have you heard our PM Najib or the Malaysian government doing this? Maybe, Nancy Shukri, the new de factor Law Minister, should do this.

Businesses told to respect human rights

Companies operating in Indonesia should refer to the UN
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to prevent human rights
abuses while conducting their businesses, observers have demanded.

Marzuki
Darusman, chairman of the Human Rights Resource Center for ASEAN, said
the guiding principles would help corporations to apply human rights
principles while running their businesses. “The guiding principles will
provide direction to companies that might not have grasped human rights
concepts yet,” Marzuki told a seminar in Jakarta on Friday. “With the
guiding principles, the abstract concept of human rights becomes
concrete.”

Makarim Wibisono, executive director of the ASEAN
Foundation, noted that the United Nations encouraged the use of these
principles to address prevalent conflicts between businesses interests
and human rights. “Cases of human rights violations within the business
sector have remained unchecked for quite a long time,” he said.

In
2011, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights. The framework was formulated by
Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Business and
Human Rights and Harvard Kennedy School Professor John Ruggie.

The
idea of creating this framework was initiated in the early 1970s after
the United Nations Economic and Social Council finished its study on the
impact of transnational corporations. This framework is based upon
three “interrelated and mutually supporting pillars”, which are; the
state duty to protect its citizens from abuses, the corporate
responsibility to respect human rights and greater access by victims to
effective remedy.

James Kallman, the president director of
Mazars, an international organization that provides human rights
consultancy to large corporations, said that human rights violations in
business practices were still a problem in Indonesia.

“Do you
know that there are over 1,000 human rights cases reported to the
National Human Rights Commission [Komnas HAM] every year in which
companies are accused of doing something wrong to their employees, or
more frequently to communities?” Kallman said. “The reports are related
to environmental and land acquisition issues in which the lands of
indigenous people are taken away,” he added.

Kallman said that it
was very important that business practitioners respected human rights.
“What Professor John Ruggie said was that companies must respect human
rights. What a powerful word. How come Professor Ruggie didn’t say
‘companies must comply’? It’s a totally different meaning. Respect is
something that comes from the heart,” Kallman said.

Kallman
pointed out some concrete ways in which companies could show their
commitment to human rights protection. “How can they do it? They have to
look at their businesses and see how their practices harm human beings.
They must analyze the risk. Does it hurt a worker or a member of the
community? How could it impact negatively on the life of someone? That
is what due diligence is about. To assess these risks,” Kallman said.
Kallman cited some consequences that companies could face should they
fail to respect human rights. “Nobody will invest, nobody will loan
money and eventually you will suffer losses in your share price. In the
long-term, you will cease to exist.” (nai/ogi) - The Jakarta Post, 27/5/2013, Businesses told to respect human rights

The
Malaysian Bar welcomes the announcement that the Inspector General of
Police, Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, will head a special
committee established to take measures to prevent deaths in police
lockups, which will implement frequent visits by doctors and also visits
by Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”) Commissioners. Such
measures provide some assurance of the level of seriousness being
accorded to the grave issue of deaths in police custody.

The
statistics regarding deaths in police custody in Malaysia is a leaf out
of the macabre: 156 persons died in police custody between 2000 and
February 2011,1 and it has been reported that there were at least six such deaths in 2012,2 with this being the fifth one in 2013.3 This data is alarming, as it points to an average of at least one death in police custody per month since 2000.

The
Malaysian Bar is dismayed and saddened by the news of yet another death
in police custody, involving 32-year-old N Dharmendran. He was
reportedly arrested on 11 May 2013, and died on 21 May 2013 whilst in
police remand at the Kuala Lumpur police contingent headquarters.

The
death of N Dharmendran is tragic and inexcusable. It is yet another
incident that raises serious questions about the treatment and safety of
detainees in police custody, and the methods of interrogation used. It
underscores the importance of the requirement for those in police
custody to have immediate access to legal counsel upon arrest.

In
the case of N Dharmendran’s arrest, the protocol prescribed under the
Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (“YBGK”) scheme, which is an
initiative made possible by Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Abdul
Razak, and supported by the Government, does not appear to have been
complied with by the police. The guidelines for enforcement officers
stipulate that as soon as an arrest has been made, and before the
suspect is questioned, the police officer must inform the suspect’s
family (or friend) of the arrest, and must also provide details of the
suspect and the arrest to YBGK, who will then despatch a lawyer to offer
legal representation to the arrested person.

However,
we understand that YBGK did not receive any notification from the
police about N Dharmendran’s arrest. We regret to note that this is the
second occasion that we are aware of where YBGK was not notified of an
arrest, and the detainee later died in police custody. In the first
incident, 32-year-old K Nagarajan had been found dead on 24 Dec 2012 in
the Dang Wangi police station lockup.

The
present state of affairs has led to much public outrage and an erosion
of confidence in the police. The police must be proactive in ensuring
that the wrongful actions of some amongst them do not tarnish the
standing of the whole force. Unless this is addressed, the police force
will unfortunately remain a diminished institution in the eyes of the
public.

The
unabated deaths in police custody reinforce the Malaysian Bar’s
repeated calls for the Government to implement the recommendation of the
Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal
Malaysia Police, in its report published in May 2005, for the setting up
of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”)
to function as an independent and external oversight body to
investigate complaints about police personnel.

It
is untenable for the Government to continue to ignore the dire need for
the IPCMC, in the face of continuing cases of deaths in police custody.

The
Malaysian Bar takes the view that every death in custody must be
thoroughly and impartially investigated. Although Chapter XXXII of the
Criminal Procedure Code requires that all custodial deaths be
investigated by way of inquest, no inquest is held in most instances.
Thus, the Malaysian Bar calls on the authorities to urgently implement
comprehensive structural reform where inquests are concerned. The few
recent enquiries into deaths of persons that occurred whilst in the
custody of, or in or around the premises of, law enforcement agencies,
have resulted in “open” verdicts. In this regard, the Malaysian Bar
urges the Government to introduce a Coroners’ Act, and establish a
Coroners’ Court with the following features:

(1) A clearly-stated aim, which will focus on identifying the deceased and ascertaining how, when and where the person died;

(2)
The creation of an official position of a State Coroner, and Coroners.
These would be appointed by the Prime Minister upon the recommendation
of the Chief Justice. The State Coroner must be a Sessions Court Judge,
ie a more senior position than that of a Magistrate, who currently
conducts the inquests;

(3) The
Coroner would be specially trained and be responsible for supervising
investigations by the police, ensuring that all relevant evidence is
gathered, presiding over enquiries, and making findings; and

(4) The
specific use of pathologists and forensic pathologists. Only
pathologists, or medical practitioners supervised by pathologists, may
conduct post-mortems.

In
the meantime, the Malaysian Bar calls for an immediate inquest into N
Dharmendran’s death, as a matter of public interest warranting the
highest level of priority. The police must render every assistance to
the inquest and undertake a prompt and transparent investigation into
the incident. In this regard, we are encouraged by the statement of the
police authorities that they have set up a special task force to
investigate the matter.

Those
responsible for N Dharmendran’s death must be identified and be made to
face the full force of the law immediately. The key question is who
the culprits responsible for this heinous crime are. The police force
owes it to the families of the deceased, the public and itself, to do
all that is required to ensure that such incidents do not occur again.
It is incumbent upon the police to continuously work to establish the
confidence and trust of the public whom they are duty-bound to serve and
protect.

As
stated by the Supreme Court of India, death in police custody is “. . .
one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society governed by the
rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society.
Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens . . . . and
is an affront to human dignity. . . .”4 It is shocking that detainees continue to die under questionable circumstances while in the custody of the police.

The
Malaysian Bar hopes that N Dharmendran’s death will not be relegated to
a mere footnote in the disturbing history of custodial deaths in our
country.

The Malaysian Bar expresses its deepest condolences to the family and friends of N Dharmendran.

Well, looks like we have a new de facto Law Minister - maybe it should be de facto Human Rights Minister.

It is Hajah Nancy Haji Shukri, and she is a Malaysian, a Scottish-Malay-Iban adopted by a Malay family (see below 'Malay? Chinese? Just Nancy!', an article that appeared in Nutgraph)

Would Nancy be guided by principles of human rights and justice? Or would she be cowed by Najib and the BN-UMNO? We have to wait and see.

She certainly needs to immediately ensure the appointment of new SUHAKAM HR Commissioners - and who she chooses would be indicative of how she will perform as a Minister. Would she appoint persons who are committed to human rights and justice, fearless to stand up when it is the government, PM, police, public servants, etc that are the violators, or would be weak personalities 'loyal' to the PM and the BN-UMNO government? Would it be people with a human rights history and background, or just some with an academic background? We shall see...we shall see...

How will she handle death in custody? Will she do the right thing and ensure Sedition Act is abolished?

Personally, would she be like Nazri Aziz, and be a proponent for the abolition of the death penalty?

Nancy gives top priority to Suhakam

PUTRAJAYA: Speeding up the appointment of members of the
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) will be among the top
priorities of newly-appointed Minister in the Prime Minister's
Department Nancy Shukri.

She said that she was fully aware of public expectations, including that of the appointment of Suhakam commissioners.

“We will try to bring improvements to our services based on feedback from the public,” she told reporters.

This was after the handover of duties to her by Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz yesterday.

Nancy
has now taken charge of 11 agencies, including the Public Land
Transport Commission, the Prime Minister's Department Advisory Board,
the Legal Affairs Division, the Insolvency Department and the Judicial
and Legal Services Commission.

Suhakam has been without commissioners since the former chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam and the six other members ended their three-year tenure on April 25.

Malay? Chinese? Just Nancy!

By Koh Lay Chin
| 06 May 2010
|

(All pics below courtesy of Nancy Shukri)

NANCY Shukri is the Member of Parliament for the Batang Sadong constituency in Sarawak and Wanita Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu secretary-general. Formerly the political secretary to Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud, she was active in the Sarawak Federation of Women’s Institute
(SFWI) and various non-governmental organisations before she entered
politics. She also owned her own firm, NS Training and Consultancy
Services, before being called to serve public office.

She was one of nine new faces introduced by Sarawak Barisan Nasional
for the March 2008 general elections, and won in the largely
conservative and rural area of Batang Sadong despite not being a local.
She holds a law degree from Hull University and an executive Master of
Business Administration (MBA) from Ohio University, and is married with
three children.

A firm believer in national harmony and development, Nancy told The Nut Graph about her growing and formative years in this 15 Apr 2010 interview in Kuala Lumpur.

When and where were you born?

I was born in Kuching, on 5 Aug 1961, in the kampung where my mom
still lives. We live across the river and we still have our house there.

What was your childhood like, some of your early memories?

Nancy, right, with a school friend, circa age 15I
can never forget that I swam across the Sarawak river when I was 14.
When I was small I liked to go into the jungle, because we were from the
kampung and there were still loads of fruit trees at the time. So on
weekends my friends and I would always go swimming or go and look for
wild fruit.

I didn’t actually know how to swim at first. My mother didn’t know at
the time, but I was a naughty girl, and when I was supposed to go for
Quran reading, I would take the opportunity to learn how to swim. I
would practise at the back of people’s houses, and in very dirty water (laughs).
But so I learnt, and at age 14 I [wore] the sarong, turned into a
“balloon” of sorts, and then swam across the river. I was the only girl
[along] with the boys in the kampung who did that.

The Sarawak river was huge, and if you ask me to do it again now, I
wouldn’t. It was fun and I was not scared at the time, but I was told
that there were crocodiles in the river.

Can you trace your ancestry?

My mother was adopted by a Malay family during the Japanese
Occupation. My mother’s father was Scottish, under the British
government at that time. My late grandfather was the Resident of
Kuching. He was also the magistrate, and my mother told me he had many
responsibilities. He married an Iban-Chinese.

But when my mother was 11, the Japanese came and were looking for
British children, so my mother and her brother were taken to be hidden
by this Malay family. My grandfather died in a massacre by the Japanese.
My mother was looked after by the Malay family [as she grew up], but
was also well taken care of by the British government.

Nancy’s father (centre) and mother (right) in preparation for the umrah to MeccaI remember the last Brooke, Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke,
came to Kuching in 1982 and looked for my mother and uncle. He invited
all of my family members to Holiday Inn Kuching for a meal.

On my father’s side, there is a big family from Kuching. My paternal
grandfather died when I was a baby. He was a Malay who married a
Melanau, and they came all the way from Rajang.

How has all this shaped your identity as a Malaysian?

As far as I know, to my family and me, everybody is a brother and
sister, regardless of religion. Because that’s the lifestyle we have
been living all these years, with our Chinese and British cousins. We
even forget about so-and-so not being Muslim. In fact, I have a Chinese
Malaysian cousin whom we keep calling Mat — we forget his Chinese name!

In our family, and for most Sarawakians, if a Chinese Malaysian
invites us to their house, we don’t bother asking whether things are
halal or not. We just start eating; that’s us.

But of course, now people are always asking, and you think, what has
happened politically? Suddenly someone starts using racial or religious
issues, and then you realise [that this situation exists], and you start
getting questions like, “Who are you? Are you Malaysian first? Malay
first? Or Chinese first?”

And what do you say when people start asking you that question?

I am just Nancy! Why would it concern you whether I am Malay or
Chinese or what? I am just Nancy and I am a Malaysian, that’s all.

Upon graduating with her Bachelor of Law (Honours)

Are there any stories or advice from your mother or father that you hold dear to your heart?

My mother does not give us advice, actually, she shows by example.
She is a very active woman, in both the NGOs and politics at the ground
level. It’s because of her that I got involved in politics, I guess. She
had a hard life because she had to take care of so many people. She
only studied up to Primary Three, but she does artwork, handicraft and
works with NGOs, [and] teaches people.

Do you often look back now and compare your busy life as a politician with your blissful past?

In the kampung I was also very active and community-orientated as a
child. I played the kompang and zikir as a teenager. I guess because of
my mother’s influence, I was not just a follower, but a leader in
singing and other activities. I followed Saberkas
(the Sarawak National Youth Organisation) from the age of 12. Whenever
there was a kenduri in the kampung, or if people wedded or passed away,
we would all be very much involved in everything.

I thought that all this would be over when I went off to study. I
remember telling myself, perhaps I want to be on my own and lead a
private life. But like it or not, when it comes to these things, people
actually pick and appoint you. And I just didn’t know how to say no.

After my mother admitted she was getting old, people took me into the
NGOs and expected me to be there. They also put me in high positions.
After my term was over, I thought that was it. But then suddenly I was
involved in politics.

With other politicians and administrators in Sarawak

I was running and enjoying my own business already, which revolved
around training. As long as I had fun and could go on holidays with my
family, I did not want to pressure myself. A while later, I was pulled
in to become a political secretary, which I had no experience in. And
then after that, I was asked to stand to become an MP. It was a real
shock to me actually, and something totally out of my plans.

What do you hope for Malaysia?

I want to see a more peaceful Malaysia. Look at Parliament. It is not
too bad now, but in the first three months when I first came in, I
almost gave up. Because this is not my culture — fighting, arguing,
shouting. In fact, if you observe the Sarawakians in Parliament, we do
not shout. To us and to me, it does not do us any good.

At first we were criticised, even by the [deputy speaker] (Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar),
that we did not speak up. But who said so? We were speaking, but not in
that tone, not that way. However, during recent proceedings, it was the
speaker himself again who gave credit to us. He said, “I’m glad that
you Sarawakians always kept cool and did not participate, or it would
have worsened the situation.”

I want to see men and women moving forward, instead of talking about
the past. I want to see people become more advanced in their thinking,
and realise that we don’t have to kill each other in order to reach
somewhere.

With her mother (left) and other relatives during her wedding ceremony in Kuching. She wore several different traditional dresses that day, including this kimono

As in the debates on race and religion?

Like it or not, we have sentimental values as Malay or Chinese
[Malaysians] for example, but that does not make us different from [one
another].

It spoils the whole country, the whole nation, when we talk about racial and religious issues. On the “Allah” issue,
for example, Sarawak did not comment on it. I led the hymns for
Christian songs in my school and I treated it as a singing activity.
That is you and this is us, and it doesn’t turn me into a Christian.

There is a difference in how we handle things in Sarawak. Once, I
said in Parliament: “We don’t want anyone from outside Sarawak to come
and teach us about harmony or peace or living in unity!” I think we are
the ones who can become the model, for we are the ones who have been
living in a very peaceful surrounding. - The Nut Graph, 6/5/2010, Malay? Chinese? Just Nancy!

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

When Malaysians needed the Human Rights Commission(SUHAKAM), Najib's Barisan Nasional-UMNO government saw fit to ensure that there will be no HR Commissioners when so many rights to a free and fair election were allegedly being violated. Yes, as of 25th April, no HR Commissioners - why could the term of the old HR Commissioners be extended, or a new batch appointed to ensure that Malaysians will still have SUHAKAM to be yet another avenue where persons in Malaysia to go to complaint about rights violations.

The last batch of SUHAKAM HR Commissioners did fare well taking up a lot of issues, and promptly making necessary statements on issues of human rights including the freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, police brutality, etc ... most like was a 'thorn in Najib's back' - unlike many previous batches of HR Commissioners, filled with a majority of 'fearful', passive persons sufficient to ensure that they never came out much against the government and/or actions of public servants...In the last batch, being of much smaller number, there were fortunately many who truly were 'human rights defenders', who were able to ensure that SUHAKAM behaved not like a 'government entity' but more like a National Human Rights Institution. The result was that more and more persons lodged complaints believing that there is hope...not just a futile exercise of complaining to 'toothless' tigers.

I would not be surprised if Najib now appoints a bunch of more passive...'less brave', less true HR Defnders as HR Commissioners - and SUHAKAM may once again end up being a 'toothless', pro-government body - and human rights once again is forgoten.

My hope, though, is that Najib and this BN government does the needful and appoint true HR Defenders to be HR Commissioners... persons with a history of upholding the cause of justice and human rights without fear or favour...and this should be done soonest...

The BN government, sadly have been eroding democratic space....freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

The Peaceful Assembly Act, as we all see now, is most draconian and erodes away the right to peaceful assembly even further.... Now, the need for 10 days notice(when people have something to express, it certainly is done immediately - not after 10 days). Then, there is that additional requirement of getting explicit permission from the people that own/control the place where the assembly is to be held. In 1998, the REFORMASI protest/s in KL really did not have any 'organisers' - now, the new Act requires some person to 'organize' it, when in reality many peaceful assembly are impromptu response of the people with really no 'organisers' per se. Word goes around - and people gather and protest...

There has been so much more erosion of rights and freedoms during the BN-UMNO rule of Malaysia, and I need not elaborate for we all know this.

Now, what we need to do is to call Najib to immediately appoint SUHAKAM HR Commissioners and make sure they are people with a history of standing for Human Rights, not a bunch of fearful 'yes-persons' who would be very slow to act against the government, the police, etc....

Wednesday May 22, 2013

79 complaints lodged but zero Suhakam commissioners

By SHAILA KOSHY koshy@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: The number of complaints lodged with Suhakam
is piling up but no inquiries can be held as Suhakam is still without
commissioners.

Suhakam secretary Rodziah Abdul said the
Complaints and Inquiries Division had received 79 complaints between
April 26 and May 20.

Of the 79, 59 pertained to the 13th general
election and the remaining 20 were split up as follows – freedom of
expression (1), education (2), migrant workers (2), unrelated to
infringement of human rights (10), and others (5).

“The
operational machinery of Suhakam continues even without the
commissioners, including communicating with the agencies involved,” said
Rodziah in an interview.

“However, only commissioners can decide whether an inquiry is necessary as they are the governing body of Suhakam.”

Of the 59 complaints on GE13, she said 22 related to indelible ink.

“We will communicate with the Election Commission after we have assessed whether there are merits to the complaints.”

Asked
whether commissioners could be expected soon, she replied: “To date, we
haven’t been informed about any new appointments or re-appointments.”

It has been 26 days since chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam and six commissioners ended their three-year tenure on April 25.

This is the second time Suhakam has been left without commissioners.

The last time, there was a 45-day gap between the leaving of the Suhakam team led by Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman on April 23, 2010, and the appointment of the team led by Hasmy.

While
the appointments are made by the Prime Minister under the Suhakam Act,
he does so from a list of candidates proposed by the Suhakam Selection
Committee chaired by Chief Secretary Datuk Seri Dr Ali Hamsa.

"I [N Surendran]
have been allowed to view Dharmendran's body with lawyer Latheefa Koya
and the family members of the deceased after the pathologist had allowed
us to view it at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL) mortuary."

"There
were physical evidence of beatings and torture to the front of his
thighs, and at the back of his body, there were beating marks on his
back (severe to the point that) it had swelled up.

There is really no reason whatsoever to beat up suspects. As of 2007, whatever confessions or things that are told by the suspect to the police cannot be used in cases to ensure conviction of the suspects. So why beat up suspects? There has just been too many deaths in police custody.

A
man died after complaining of breathing difficulties while being
detained at the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters lock-up in Kuala Lumpur
last night.

In the 9pm incident, the man had complained of chest
pains before being brought to the Kuala Lumpur Hospital but was
pronounced dead on arrival, said City CID chief Ku Chin Wah.

He
said the 32-year-old man was one of four suspects arrested in connection
with a shooting case in Bandar Tun Razak, Cheras on May 11.

“A post-mortem will be done at HKL,” he told a press conference in Kuala Lumpur today.

In
other developments, Ku said police had been given an extension on the
remand till Monday on the second suspect held in connection with the
murder of Customs deputy director-general (Customs/ Internal Tax)
Shaharuddin Ibrahim.

He said police needed more time to wrap up investigations.

Shaharuddin was shot dead while on his way to work in Putrajaya in April 26.

Sunday May 26, 2013

Leave no stone unturned in latest death in lock-up case

The Star Says

THE new IGP surely isn't having it easy. Just days into his appointment, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar has had his hands full dealing with Opposition rallies, arrests of people for sedition and cracking down on gun violence.

But perhaps the most difficult and sensitive matter before him is the death of yet another police detainee.

Although
police initially said N. Dharmendran died from “breathing
difficulties”, a post-mortem revealed he died from “multiple blunt force
trauma”. Bluntly put, he was most likely beaten to death and the case
has swiftly been reclassified as murder.

City police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohmad Salleh also announced the setting up of a task force to investigate.

So
far, the police have responded to this new crisis quite well. Perhaps
they have learned from the public relations nightmare involving the 2009
death of A. Kugan in the Subang Jaya police station.

In that
case, public anger was fanned by conflicting reports from two
post-mortems on the cause of death of the suspected car thief. But
photos of Kugan's body with incriminating wounds and bruises went viral,
leading to widespread belief of police brutality. Eventually, police
constable V. Navindran was charged and convicted of causing hurt to
Kugan.

Navindran subsequently claimed he was made the scapegoat.
Through the whole messy case, the police image took a severe beating as
accusations of cover-up and brutality and torture being commonplace in
lock-ups swirled.

Kugan's death at the hands of the police
remains an angry, sore point with the public, especially the Indian
community. If Dharmendran's death is not handled properly and
satisfactorily, it could explode with similarly nasty consequences.

Dharmendran,
32, was detained on May 12 along with three others after they were
suspected to have been involved in a shooting case in Bandar Tun Razak
two weeks earlier.

DCP Mohamad, while saying Dharmendran might
have been murdered while in custody at the Kuala Lumpur police
headquarters, declined to elaborate on the nature of the deceased's
injuries.

He also urged the public not to speculate and to allow the police time to conduct a full investigation.

The
problem is people will speculate as long as police continue to withhold
information like the deceased's injuries. It has already been widely
reported that there were signs of bruises and staple marks on his body.

Granted,
the police have promised to investigate, but it is perhaps better for
an independent body to do so. This will give the public confidence that
there is transparency and no cover-up.

What Khalid must also do
immediately is to review the protocol on how detainees are interrogated
and treated. Again, how this is conducted will also affect public
perception of the force.

It may also be timely for him to
consider supporting the implementation of the Independent Police
Complaints and Misconduct Commission as proposed by the royal commission
of inquiry in the police in 2007.

A young father has been
murdered. His family and the public are demanding answers. No stone must
be left unturned, even if it means revealing ugly truths, so that
Dharmendran's murderers can be brought to justice and safeguards are in
place to prevent custody deaths from happening again.- Star, 26/5/2013, Leave no stone unturned in latest death in lock-up case

But, I believe, still no police officer has been arrested.....only saw reports about the wife being called in for investigations...Tell us how many witnesses have been investigated. What has happened to the suspected police personnel? Have they been suspended at the very least?

Now, if the victim was tortured to death by the police, then we hope that criminal action [not some disciplinary action] be taken against all the police officers involved in physically torturing the victim, all police officers that 'knew about it' and did nothing - for they should also be punished as 'accomplices'.

The Officer in Charge of the said police station, if he is a person of honour, should immediately tender his resignation for his gross failings as OIC that has resulted in the torture and 'murder' of a suspect...What do you think?

Have the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and/or the IGP visited the family of Dharmendran to extend at the very least their condolence - for after all the death happened in the custody of the police...or they have just not bothered.

The SUHAKAM also cannot act - because there are no Human Rights Commissioners since April 25th...that is if one is wondering why SUHAKAM has not made a statement with regard this case....

Friday, May 24, 2013

Recent Arrests and Actions by the Authorities are a Closing of Democratic Space

The Malaysian Bar is appalled by the recent arrests of several
individuals pursuant to the Sedition Act 1948. The Sedition Act, as
with its predecessor the Sedition Ordinance, was conceived and designed
by a colonial government to stifle fundamental rights and liberties,
oppress the rakyat and deny them democratic space. Its sole purpose was
to suppress and persecute the citizenry. The Sedition Act has no place
in our modern democratic society and should have been discarded at
Merdeka. The time for it to be dumped into the dustbin of history is
long overdue.

It has been reported that Adam Adli, Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar and
Haris Ibrahim were arrested for purportedly making seditious statements
at a forum held on 13 May 2013. The continued use of the Sedition Act
by the authorities directly contradicts the promise made less than a
year ago by Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak in July
2012, that the 64-year-old law will be repealed and replaced in 2013 by a
National Harmony Act. This was a clear admission and recognition by
the Government that the Sedition Act was an anachronistic and repressive
colonial law. The Prime Minister further stated that the new law will
not prevent members of the public from criticising the government,
quoting John Locke who said, “…the end of law is not to abolish or
restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”

The decision to arrest Adam Adli, Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar and Haris
Ibrahim is therefore an unacceptable repudiation of the promise made by
the Prime Minister. It further raises questions over the Government’s
sincerity in pursuing transformation and greater civil liberties through
legislative reforms.

The test of a genuine democracy is to allow words to be said even
when we disagree with them. As much as one may not agree with the calls
for public demonstrations to oppose the Government and question its
electoral legitimacy, citizens nevertheless have a fundamental right to
express themselves in such manner so long as they do so peacefully and
there is no call for the use of violence. The authorities would be
wrong to assume that a call to overthrow the government must necessarily
be only by violent means. Time and again, the rakyat have shown that
they can gather in public assembly in large numbers, yet peacefully. It
is therefore unjustifiable and premature to preempt the exercise of
fundamental rights and freedoms with assumptions or postulations of the
use of violence. As much as dissent and opposition may be unpalatable,
these must not be criminalised and silenced, but countered with open and
healthy debate, reforms and concrete changes.

The Malaysian Bar is equally troubled by the arrest of 18 persons
holding a peaceful candlelight vigil outside the Jinjang Police
Detention Centre on 22 May 2013. The Malaysian Bar is disappointed that
the police have said that they can no longer tolerate such candlelight
vigils. It is not the role of the police to tolerate or otherwise, but
it is their duty to facilitate the exercise of democratic freedoms. The
police must bring themselves into the 21st century and cease
suppressing the rights of the rakyat. The Malaysian Bar is concerned
that these incidents may also signal a lurch towards greater
authoritarianism, fascism and persecution of those whose viewpoints
differ from those of the Government. It feeds an already widely held
belief that there is an unhealthy symbiotic relationship between the
police on the one hand, and Government on the other. In simple terms,
“You protect me, I defend you”.

This may be seen from the failure of the authorities to take similar
action in other obvious cases that more clearly evidence utterances and
publications exhibiting seditious tendencies. It is inexplicable that
there has been no similar prosecution against the likes of:

(b)Ridhuan
Tee Abdullah and Zulkifli Noordin, for allegedly disparaging the Hindu
religion and insulting adherents of the religion;

(c)The racial rhetoric of the Prime Minister in his allegation of a “Chinese tsunami”, followed by the Utusan Malaysia article entitled “Apa lagi orang Cina mahu?”; and

(d)Datuk
Mohd Noor Abdullah, a former Court of Appeal judge, for allegedly
accusing a racial group of treason and warning of retribution by another
racial group.

While
the Malaysian Bar is not advocating the use of the Sedition Act against
these individuals, we abhor the discrepancies in treatment and the
selective prosecution by the authorities in this regard. Further, the
police should not have made an application for the remand of Tian Chua,
Tamrin Ghafar and Haris Ibrahim, because it was an abuse of the process
of the law. Given that the alleged incident occurred 11 days ago, the
police should already have evidence of what was allegedly said. We
commend the Magistrate for having refused the application for remand.

The Malaysian Bar strongly urges the authorities to withdraw the
charge against Adam Adli, and not to prosecute Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar,
Haris Ibrahim and the 18 individuals arrested at the candlelight vigil.
We urge them to respect the freedom of speech and assembly as
enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The Malaysian Bar also urges the
Government to resist the temptation to quell dissenting voices by
resorting to archaic and oppressive legislation. Otherwise, the promise
of freedoms made by the Prime Minister will be nothing more than a mere
platitude.

The Malaysian Bar deplores the seizure of copies of Harakah, Suara Keadilan and The Rocket,
the newspapers of political parties PAS, PKR and DAP, respectively. We
reiterate that the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 should be
abolished. The condition imposed by the authorities on these three
publications — prohibiting their sale and distribution to members of the
public at large — is unconstitutional, as it breaches the right of the
publishers to the freedom of expression. It is also a breach of the
constitutional rights of the public to receive such information.

The recent arrests, prosecutions and confiscations by the authorities
are manifestations of regressive and undemocratic conduct. The current
environment is not reflective of a government aspiring to achieve
world-class democracy. Rather than bringing about a society that is at
ease with itself, it is instead creating an environment of grave
concern.

The Malaysian Bar calls upon the newly elected Government to
demonstrate its commitment to a continuing course of transformation and
democratic reforms, not by rhetoric alone but by sincere and genuine
action.

To promote greater democracy, the Government should welcome
diversity of opinion, not close democratic space.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

I am a bit concerned about what is happening in Selangor with the Exco list. It is a bit hard to believe that it is because of HRH Sultan of Selangor, that seem to be blamed now, as being the party exerting 'pressure' with regard the composition of the State Exco. What if HRH Sultan said he preferred someone from UMNO as the Menteri Besar? What if HRH Sultan said that he wanted persons from the BN in the State Exco?

Personally, I do not believe that HRH Sultan of Selangor is the one exerting such pressure in Selangor, it may be just some elements within the Pakatan Rakyat itself. If the later is what is happening, many Malaysians may want to re-think their preference for Pakatan Rakyat - now seen to be as divisive (or even worse than the BN) when ethnicity and religion becomes a bigger concern than the best 'Malaysian' with the required ability, capacity and skills to serve the people. [I never heard of any Sultan's preferences with regard the Exco composition when BN ruled..., or was it there and we were not told...]

The delay in finalising the Selangor state executive council list is to
comply with the Selangor Sultan's request to change the racial
composition of the line-up, says Selangor PAS deputy commissioner Khalid
Samad.

"We understand that his royal highness wants to see an exco made up of six Malays and four non-Malays.

"This
is different from the exco in 2008, which was made up of five Malays
and five non-Malays," Khalid, the MP for Shah Alam, said in a blog
posting yesterday.

First concern, is the word '...understand that his royal...' - Where is this understanding coming from? I do not recall seeing any statement made by HRH Sultan of Selangor.

Second, the changes of ethnic/religious composition certainly should not have anything to do with Pakatan winning more Malay majority seats for after all we are talking about the governance of Selangor State and its people - and how many Malay majority seats won is a reason more likely being raised by elements in Pakatan Rakyat - not HRH Sultan of Selangor who reasonably would be concerned for all people in Selangor, and not how many Malay majority seats won by PR. As such, this reasoning is absurd. The people voted in their reps, and they did not consider ethnicity, religion, gender... these factors are arguments raised by political parties or potential candidates when lobbying to be chosen as candidates or party seats during elections.{Furthermore, if we were to look at popular ethnic support, it may very well paint a different picture...}.

DAP 15, PAS 15 and PKR 14 - still they agreed to an MB from PKR, and I hope it was because he was the best available candidate for the MB position.

Remember restrictions based on ethnicity and/or religion is a problem for multiracial parties like PKR and DAP, and also PAS now since they too are fielding non-Muslim candidates...moving towards becoming a truly Malaysian party.

I hope that Pakatan Rakyat would stand up against all these ethnic/religious considerations. Remember that you have the people's mandate...and do not cow down to such pressures based on ethnicity and religion...or 'Party shares'.

Wherever Pakatan won, it matters not whether the candidate came from PAS, PKR or DAP, or was a Malay, Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan, Thai, Iban, Kadazan... the Pakatan Rakyat would have still won no matter who the candidate. People voted for the PR...not so much the candidates. [Of course, if it was an incumbent, then performance during the last tenure would also be considered by the voters..]

I believe that the composition of the State cabinet(State Executive Council) should be merely on the consideration of the best person available for the portfolio without consideration about which party, ethnicity, religion, gender,...This would be best for the people.

But alas, Pakatan Rakyat also, seems to be like the BN, bickering about this and that. First, there was bickering about the seats...now, the number of Exco positions? We had the PKR reps fighting about the MB position and candidate...See also

We have to remember that the Pakatan Rakyat has the two third majority in Selangor, and that means that there should be no problem to now amend the Selangor Constitution, to bring in in line with the Federal Constitution. This would mean removing the ethnic and religious condition when it comes to appointing the Menteri Besar - making the Menteri Besar(as is the case with the Prime Minister of Malaysia) a member of the Legislative Assembly who ...command the confidence of the majority of the
members of the Assembly.Surely Malaysians would want the best person who enjoys the confidence of the majority appointed as the Menteri Besar irrespective of gender, ethnicity and/or religion, and for the chosen Menteri Besar to then chose the best of the elected representatives as members of his/her cabinet(State Executive Council). Would not a person like Lim Guan Eng make a good Menteri Besar of Selangor?

51 Appointment of Menteri Besar [LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SELANGOR, 1959] (1) His
Highness shall appoint by Instrument under His Sign Manual and the State
Seal, a Menteri Besar, in accordance with paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article 53.
(1A)
His Royal Highness shall appoint by Instrument under His Sign Manual
and the State Seal a Deputy Menteri Besar in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (c) of Clause (2) of Article 53.
(2)
Subject to the provision of Clause (4) of Article 53 no person shall be
appointed to be Menteri Besar unless he is of the Malay Race and
professes the Muslim Religion.

Article 51(2) would exclude also Muslims of all other ethnicities in Malaysia, including other Bumiputra Muslims. An Orang Asli also could not be the MB. This provision certainly need to be repealed.

53 The Executive Council

(1) His Highness shall appoint a Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan to be called in English the State Executive Council.
(2) The State Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say-

(a)
His Highness shall first appoint as Menteri Besar to preside over the
State Executive Council, a member of the Legislative Assembly who in His
judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the
members of the Assembly;(b) He shall on the advice of the
Menteri Besar appoint not more than ten nor less than four other members
from among the members of the Legislative Assembly; and(c)
He shall, if the Menteri Besar so advises, appoint a member of the
State Executive Council to be the Deputy Menteri Besar who shall assist
the Menteri Besar in the exercise of his powers, the performance of his
duties and the carrying out of his functions, and on the directions of
the Menteri Besar, he shall exercise such powers, perform such duties
and carry out such functions of the Menteri Besar,...

Yes, Pakatan Rakyat has the ability and the capacity to make the needful amendments of the Selangor Constitution - a failure to do so in this term would show us a glimpse of the true nature of Pakatan Rakyat...

98 Amendments of the Constitution

(1) The following provisions of this Article shall have effect with respect to the amendments of this Constitution.
(2) The provisions of the First Part of this Constitution except Articles 3 and 38 (b)
may be amended by His Highness by proclamation issued with the advice
and concurrence of the Dewan di-Raja established under Article 23 but
may not be amended by the State Legislature or by any other means.
(3) The provisions of Article 38 (b)
and Articles 47, 48 and 93 may, subject to Clause (5), be amended by
Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly and approved by the Dewan
di-Raja established under Article 23 and assented to by His Highness,
but may not be amended by any other means.(4) The provisions of
the Second Part except Articles 47, 48 and 93 and the provisions of
Articles 1, 2 and 3 may, subject to Clause (5), be amended by an
enactment of the State Legislature but may not be amended by any other
means.(5) A Bill for making an amendment to this Constitution
shall not be passed by the Legislative Assembly unless it has been
supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two
thirds of the total number of members thereof.
(5A) The following amendments are excepted from the provisions of Clause (5), that is to say-

(a)
any amendment to the definition of the territory of the State which is
made in consequence of the passing of a law altering the boundaries of
the State under Article 2 of the Federal Constitution to which the
Legislative Assembly and the Conference of Rulers have consented under
the said Article; and
(b) any amendment the effect of which
is to bring this Constitution into accord with any of the provisions of
the Eighth Schedule to the Federal Constitution, but only if it is made
after the Legislative Assembly has been elected in accordance with
Article 62.

Number of Visits

By 15th June 2008, we 1,328,396 visits...and by 2010, we would have easily crossed the 2 million mark..We started counting visits again in May 2010, and soon we expect to be crossed the million mark yet again. As such, we have had over 3 million visits to our site. On an average, we have about 700-750 visits per day.
Thank you all for your support and encouragement..

I believe in the freedom of expression - and everyone is free to use, reproduce, quote, copy and circulate, etc... materials published here. Please credit the source: http://charleshector.blogspot.com/.

For those of you who do have Blogs/Websites, it would be good if you could add a link to CHARLES HECTOR Blog. Please do promote the BLOG.

Anonymous comments or those containing profanities and obscenities (or irrelevant matters) will be rejected.